W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2001

RE: proposed resolution to issue #30

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:00:26 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4019B975B@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@idoox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 2:01 PM
> To: Christopher Ferris
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: proposed resolution to issue #30
> 
> 
>  Chris,
>  it doesn't preclude it, as well as the wording of Namespace spec
> doesn't preclude putting the schemas at the namespace URIs. Many
> do it this way but generally, this is not what the namespace URIs
> were designed for. Thus the Namespace spec doesn't make any
> guarantees about dereferencability of the namespace URIs, and I
> think we shouldn't make any such guarantees for actor URIs either
> (at least in the core SOAP, extensions can do anything anyway). 8-)
>  In my post [1] I didn't mean to forbid dereferencing of any of
> the URIs, I was just reacting to Noah's call for specifying our
> guarantees about dereferencability of the URIs.

I agree with Jacek here.  For those who have (blessedly?) forgotten,
there was an immense e-mail discussion of this issue during May - June
2000 that pretty well brought the other business of the W3C to a halt.
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/  

The result was that relative URIs were informally deprecated for use
in namespaces.  If that has not changed, and similar arguments that
led to this decision can be applied to the other URIs in SOAP itself,
it's still not clear to me what benefit xml:base adds to the SOAP spec.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 15:00:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT